By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
jason1637 on 02 January 2019
Edit Thread
KManX89 said:
DakonBlackblade said:

How can you possibily think that selling a pixel is not a problem. I guess thats why these companies don't go out of business, they sell ppl a pixel for 1$ and they actualy buy it.

This.

CaptainExplosion said:

The issue is selling reticles, as in something that's free in every shooter besides this one. EVERY! SINGLE! ONE!

And this.

Jesus fucking Christ, people are actually defending Activi$ion selling them reticles in an FPS game, WTF?! I'll bet if they actually did charge for ammo like I talked about earlier (which I wouldn't put it past Activi$ion), they'd try to defend that as well. 

This is why modern day gaming is in the state it's in, because of people letting greedy companies like EA, Activi$ion, Konami, Ubisoft, WB, Take Two, etc. get away with it. Some people tried to defend Konami selling them $10 save slots as well, fucking SAVE SLOTS, a basic feature that's been free in every game since the NES days. What next? Charging to load the game up? Oh wait, I'll bet they'd try to defend THAT as well SMGDMFH. 

Let me spell it out in simple terms: if it's a basic feature, YOU DON'T FUCKING CHARGE FOR IT! Just like if it's on the disc, you don't fucking charge for it. That's like record companies saying "we'll charge you $5 extra for tracks 5, 10 and 11 on that CD you just bought".

There are free reticles in the game so I don't see how this is an issue. They made extra reticles and decided to charge for something they didn't need to make.